Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[RodCrosby]

No idea. Why is it relevant?

[Graham]

No idea. Why is it relevant?

Oh well...

Graham

[Herlock Sholmes]

Monomaniac really thinks I'm hanging on his every tedious word.

Yaaaaaaawn.....

How can I break this to you? I really DO have bigger fish to fry....

My theory has been accepted, published and endorsed - just as I said it would be - amid the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the other thread, leading one demented, obsessive Wallace-ite to publicly self-immolate, and the closure of the thread.

I rest my case.

I always suspected that you just worked in a chippy.

Your avoidance of the point speaks volumes. I’ve exposed your dishonest claim and you are too embarrassed to comment.

To say that your theory has been accepted is something that wouldn’t fool a child. One person, Antony, feels it’s the likeliest solution. He does not say that it’s case solved. He does not say that Wallace couldn’t have been guilty. Only someone with an outsized ego like yourself could conflate a ‘scenario’ with a ‘solution.’ You can witter on as much as you like. You can repeatedly avoid awkward questions. You can simply make stuff up or persist in unbelievable explainations for nonsense. it changes nothing. Julia Wallace was not killed by an imaginary sneak-thief. Parry played no part in the crime. Wallace is not only the best but the only suspect.

And on the subject of AS’s alleged ‘self-immolation’ this came at the end of a year of solid, non-stop and highly offensive trolling by you. I can post the evidence again if you want to try and deny it.

By the way, Antony and AS are now back in contact. I’m in contact with Antony too. So why won’t Antony discus and debate his book on here? It’s because you are on here Rod. No one else. That speaks volumes.

[RodCrosby]

Pure invention from the man-without-a-mirror, as usual...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Murder wasn't the object. The object was the potential £100 in the cash-box.

£6000 in today's money. The perps didn't know it would be light, because Wallace had been ill. Sh1t happens...

And when the phantom found out that there was only £4 instead of £100 what did he do? Did he search the property for other sources of cash or perhaps even jewellery?

Nope, for some reason he goes back into the Parlour for a cosy chat with Julia. Then, according to you, she starts to panic for some unknown reason. She then slips out, puts on her husband’s coat (instead of her own which would have been in the same place) and makes up some story about going next door to retrieve the cat. The phantom then gets her back into the Parlour and beats her brains out with an iron bar. He then goes around considerately turning off the lights (cleverly leaving no blood traces anywhere as let’s rememver as it was a spontaneous kill he would have made no attempt to prevent blood spatter) before leaving the house carrying an iron bar covered in blood and brains that could have in no way been connected to him.

The phantom then loiters around for upwards of half an hour (because Parry didn’t leave the Brine’s until 8.30, then he went for cigarettes and a paper then he went to Hignett’s to pick up his accumulator battery) Isnt it strange Parry’s lack of urgency if this has all been pre-planned (I’m surprised that he didn’t pick up fish and chips on the way to pick up the phantom?!)

And then...Parry waits three hours before taking his car to be cleaned at a garage where he’s not trusted or welcome to get his car cleaned by someone who neither liked nor trusted him and had told him to his face. In that three hour gap he’d gotten rid of the clean mitten (a mitten, I ask you!) and kept the bloodied one in a box in full view! When Parkes finds it does Parry make up some excuse? No he explains that the glove could get him sent to the gallows. And then he even tells Parkes where the weapon was hidden. Does Parry tell Parkes to keep his mouth shut about this? Not a word of it. But then, and this is probably the best bit, he returns three days later to the garage with ‘another man.’ Rod tried for ages to tell us that Parry and the other man threatened Parry into silence but now that we’ve all heard the radio broadcast (cheers Rod ) we know that there’s no truth in that. No threats were made. In any case what kind of idiot waits three days before returning to say “you better not tell anyone” to hear Parkes say that he’d already told everyone that he knows. And then we are asked to believe that Moore ignored Parkes statement even though it would have taken one Constable a matter of minutes to confirm or refute. And luckily for Parry and the phantom neither Parkes or any of his mates decide to nip along to Priory Road to try and find the weapon.

Fellow earthlings. On what planet is any of this believable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pure invention from the man-without-a-mirror, as usual...

Which part of that is invention?

[ColdCaseJury]

And Now For Something Completely Familiar

In attempt to cool passions here, I'm sure those interested in the Wallace case will be struck by certain parallels to it by a murder in Florida in 2007. I have written an article about it here - The Ratley Parallel.

I don't think it will change anybody's verdict on what happened in the Wallace case - views appear too entrenched - but it will be interesting to know what you make of the case and some of its similarities and dissimilarities to Wallace.

[moste]

I know it because I've BEEN THERE, many times.

So have others.

"In any case, it was towards the blind end of the street, and quieter. In 1931, whoever murdered Julia Wallace by beating her to death in the front parlour figured this, too..."

"...crime buffs are still drawn to this quiet Liverpool backwater, to gaze at the Wallace house and to wonder at its secret."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/4814376/The-1931-slaying-of-a-Liverpool-housewife-remains-to-this-day-the-perfect-murder.-Roger-Wilkes-heads-north-Raymond-Chandler-felt-the-case-would-always-be-unbeatable.html

No idea about the bricks, although I noticed them. A heat loss measure?

I don't know what that object in the photo is. But the householders opposite were all aged 40+.

I’m sorry but ‘I’ve been there many times’ ,doesn’t do it. My old Granny,born in ‘94. Was 37 when Wallace was doing his nasties in Liverpool.She lived at the bottom end of Henwood road Manchester ,(note comparison with wolverton on google earth.) Now, she told us kids ,through the years of the wonderful social closeness of the neighbours , housewives in summer sitting out with their knitting ,gossiping away, everyone pretty well knew everyone . Of course there were always the ‘Wallace ‘types who though inoffensive enough, basically we’re snobs , and thought themselves something other than working class, but in general we all tended to look out for each other,and as I say there was always a ‘news of the world’ to balance things out. It’s absolutely nothing like that nowadays unfortunately, the massive slum clearance of the 60s, followed by the laptop / I pad, put paid to that particular form of social existence . Growing up in the 50s there was about the same number of houses on our street in M/cr. As in Wolverton street, I can From memory name 90 % of the family’s we had as neighbours in 38 homes in our avenue,not to mention the odd few in surrounding streets . You can’t possibly know now ,what Wolverton street was like then ,by going there now!



I’m telling you, an evil doer would not go knocking on a front door in that street.
P.S. please don’t tell me there was any difference between Mancunians and Scoucers, especially back then. Or I’ll send you a bowl of sconce and a jam nutty in the post.

[RodCrosby]

Fellow earthlings. On what planet is any of this believable?

The one where there is an independent witness for some of it...

[RodCrosby]

housewives in summer sitting out with their knitting ,gossiping away, everyone pretty well knew everyone .

[cough] this was in January, a moonless night, in a city that had been battered by rain and gales, where there was a flu epidemic...

[etenguy]

In attempt to cool passions here, I'm sure those interested in the Wallace case will be struck by certain parallels to it by a murder in Florida in 2007. I have written an article about it here - The Ratley Parallel.

I don't think it will change anybody's verdict on what happened in the Wallace case - views appear too entrenched - but it will be interesting to know what you make of the case and some of its similarities and dissimilarities to Wallace.

Just wanted to let you know that I liked your website and the way you engage your visitors through the voting process. haven't read your Wallace book yet, but will.

[moste]

[cough] this was in January, a moonless night, in a city that had been battered by rain and gales, where there was a flu epidemic...

Oh well! ....

[moste]

Oh well! ....

I’m telling you, an evil doer would not go knocking on a front door in that street.
P.S. please don’t tell me there was any difference between Mancunians and Scoucers, especially back then. Or I’ll send you a bowl of scouce and a jam butty in the post.

[etenguy]

We have two theories that might explain the murder of Julia Wallace. Both are plausible and possible, but there is no evidence which allows us to be conclusive about the killer's identity and choose between them. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both leave some questions unanswered.

Was it was Wallace? Was it Parry/accomplice? We can decide for ourselves which narrative best fits the evidence we have, but we cannot be definitive.

Or maybe it was someone else altogether, possibly a face from Julia's past. We have yet to find any evidence which would support such a theory, however.

If we believe Parkes, then the Parry/accomplice theory has to be more persuasive. But his evidence is untested and the contemporary police did not act on his information.

If we struggle to accept the evidence is convincing regarding the robbery, then Wallace as killer is more persuasive.

For my part, I cannot decide without further evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The one where there is an independent witness for some of it...

If your independent witness is Parkes he’s about as credible as witnesses who’ve seen the Queen shapeshift into a lizard!

Mrs Brine, her 13 year old daughter, her nephew and Miss Plant however are creditable witnesses. Then we have the PO and the garage both checkable alibi’s showing Parry’s actions up to , at a guess, at least 8.45 if not later. If the phantom left the Wallace’s by say 8.00-8-30 (as it would seem likely that Parry the planner would have said “to be safe you need to be out of there by...”) then he certainly didn’t show much urgency to pick up his ‘pal’ did he.

And why did Parry’s known movements indicate that he was in no rush to pick up the phantom?

Answer: because he never went to pick anyone up.